This Uncyclopedia article is not about self-reference, in spite of the fact that the title of this Uncyclopedia article is "Self-reference". The subject matter of this Uncyclopedia article (mistitled that it is) is, in fact, Roger Ebert this Uncyclopedia article; you know the one about self-reference.

Please note, This included statement: "This included statement 'This included statement (This included statement {This included statement [ This included statement is not about this article either. ] is not about this article either.} is not about this article either.) is not about this article either.' is not about this article either." is not about this article either. For that, see Recursion.

This Uncyclopedia article is, without a doubt, a pile of festering tripe. The only thing going for this Uncyclopedia article is the fact that this Uncyclopedia article is,

for the most part,

[[Proper Wiki Formatting|properly formatted}, which, by default, makes this Uncyclopedia article a hell of a lot better that most of the other carp that is submitted to Uncyclopedia on a daily basis. From this singular fact, it can be derived without much difficulty that this Uncyclopedia article has successfully proved its major thesis.;or perpetuation of a falsehood to avoid any focus in attempting a deliniation of said accounting.

Self-referentialism is the condition of referring to a particular clump of language within the text of that clump of language. For example, this article is self-referential, as it refers to itself. Since it has just referred to its own self-referentialism, that makes it doubly self-referential. It then proceeds to make itself triply self-referential by referring to its reference to its own self-referentialism, and so on into an infinite stack of self-referentialism. It then proceeds to refer to that infinite stack, at which point any reader with half a brain goes away and reads something less confusing, like A Brief History Of Time.

Self-referentialism is often used by incredibly witty and intelligent people in order to make their articles more witty and intelligent, if not actually funny. The most commonly used form of this is to write an article in the style of whatever that article is about. There is, believe it or not (though you'd be stupid not to believe it, as it's obviously true), an entire category devoted to these articles. These are only funny if you know much about the subject of the article, and it's not about some stupidly obscure Russian guy who maybe three people in the entire world have heard of. A quintessential example of articles written in the style of their subject is the excellent article on Self-referential, which uses as its main joke repeated references to itself. It then proceeds to refer to its own main joke, thus completely blowing the minds of its few remaining readers.

Third person self-referentialism is when an Uncyclopedia article, for example, refers to itself in the third person as if it was a completely different article. The statement in the second paragraph article on Self-referentialism where that article refers to itself in the first person is an example of that, as is this very sentence that you're reading right now and will finish as soon as you have read this word.

Inter-paragraphial self-referentialism is where an one paragraph in an article such as this one refers to a different paragraph. The previous paragraph is an example. As of that sentence, so is this one.

If an Uncyclopedia article was to refer to itself as if it was a hypothetical situation, that would be considered hypothetical self-referentialism. If it was to contain a paragraph about hypothetical self-referentialism, and that paragraph was phrased as a hypothetical situation, and the hypothetical situation was actually quite clearly about the paragraph itself, then that would be weird.

Self-referentialism has been the bane of logicians since its invention. One leading logician describes it as "really fucking confusing", while others merely decline to comment. To see why these admittedly nerdy people hate it so much, consider this sentence.

"This paragraph on self-referentialism is self-referential."

This Uncyclopedia article, viewed from much much further away. Is this annoying, or what?

This paragraph would not actually have been self-referential were it not for the random placing of this sentence inside it. Once the sentence appears, however, it generally causes another reference to the paragraph itself, such as "This paragraph would not actually have been self-referential were it not for the random placing of this sentence inside it.". If this second refers to the self-referentialism of the article itself, the third reference is all too likely to be a reference to the self-referentialism of the second reference, such as 'Once the sentence appears, however, it generally causes another reference to the paragraph itself, such as "This paragraph would not actually have been self-referential were it not for the random placing of this sentence inside it.".' If this endless cycle of self-referentialism is allowed to proceed indefinetely, it will eventually become an Infinite Self-Referentialism Loop. At this point, if a reference to the Infinite Self-Referentialism Loop is made, the shockwave produced will snap all necks within a mile radius. Incidentally, this paragraph is an excellent example of Hypothetical Self-Referentialism. It is now also an example of Inter-Paragraphial Self-Referentialism. Sadly, the paragraph on Self-Referentialism and Logic is not Third-Person Self-Referential... except that now it is! Hooray!

editLinks that May or May Not be even remotely Relevant to This Uncyclopedia Article

We might as well tell you what self-reference is. Here is another example of our Gratuitous usage of bullets in a way that will, albeit badly, teach you about self-referencing, seeing as you're here at this Uncyclopedia article.

Bullet number 1: See bullet number II

This is bullet number II. For all you normal people out there, that's two. This idiotic bulleted list in this Uncyclopedia article made me with Roman Numerals. See bullet number 3 (see, he gets a real number! I will now check out the page on nihilism. It will teach me to become one.)

This is bullet number 3. I, unlike the loser bullet above me, have real numerals. To understand what I mean, see bullet number II.

If you've got this far, congratulations, you're not an idiot. If you believe this bulleted list has a purpose, however, maybe you are. See bullet number 1 to understand why.